Geocentricity Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d have thought that the request to “show” how the passage can be taken phenomenologically, would be understood to mean exegete the passage according to sound hermeneutical principles. It’s a historical narrative; what place is there in a historical narrative for phenomenological language? Is there any other historical narrative in the Bible where this occurs? Gordon Fee says of historical narratives, “Narratives record what happened.” Where is the place in a biblical narrative for the insertion of an observation based on the narrator’s mistaken interpretation of what he saw?
I agree and all that have read this account without what modern-day scientists say, believed the account as it's recorded. God could have easily said the earth stood still. He did not. He could have said the earth has a course, but He said the sun does over and over.

We are to come to God as little children by faith. Even the least learned child of God can believe the scriptures by faith without having a PhD in science.

Also, it was a miracle performed by God. Are we to also discount other miracles such as turning water into wine, healing the withered hand, etc? Where does it stop?
 
Where is there a rule that says narrative cannot use phenomenological language? I'm not aware of one.

The problem with answering this question is that, even if examples could be given, you have prejudged as a matter of principle that such occurrence must of necessity be something else. It's like when an atheist says, "Miracles cannot happen because they're impossible." Well, such a presupposition makes substantive interaction well nigh impossible.

Yes, and phenomenological language doesn't prohibit or contradict that. As a matter of historical fact, due to the earth's rotation, I saw the sun set a little while ago.

Loaded question.
Ok thanks, Taylor. One last question that may be more helpful: do you agree or disagree with the view implied by Raymond in post #155: “The key for me with Josh. 10 and other similar passages is that exegetically, one is forced to say 'the sun moves.' It is not presented as phenomenology"; the implication being that phenomenological statements or passages can be recognized exegetically as such? Sorry if :deadhorse: :)
 
...do you agree or disagree with the view implied by Raymond in post #155: “The key for me with Josh. 10 and other similar passages is that exegetically, one is forced to say 'the sun moves.' It is not presented as phenomenology"; the implication being that phenomenological statements or passages can be recognized exegetically as such?
What does it mean to be "presented as phenomenology"? That has not yet been answered or defined.
 
We are to come to God as little children by faith. Even the least learned child of God can believe the scriptures by faith without having a PhD in science.

Also, it was a miracle performed by God. Are we to also discount other miracles such as turning water into wine, healing the withered hand, etc? Where does it stop?

Please stop devolving to this level. No one here is in danger of doubting the veracity of the Bible or miracles.

The issue here is NOT one of faith vs non-faith; belief vs unbelief. I too believe the Bible when it says that the sun stood still! The question is whether one can deduce the mechanics of that from this passage, and I contest it's not meant to make a statement on the mechanics either way.
 
What does it mean to be "presented as phenomenology"? That has not yet been answered or defined.
Markers in the text itself that point to the thing observed being a mere appearance and not the reality. From what I understand, "in" and "upon" are fairly expandable in Hebrew and need not be understood woodenly. Likewise, in other places of Scripture we have markers such as, "like unto."
 
How do you know this?

I could use this logic to disprove the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
How do you know, "In the beginning, God..."? By faith, because He tells you. Can you explain how He always was without beginning or end?

Honestly, this line of reasoning could go on and on, but I'm jumping off :wave:
 
Ok so as I understand it the Saganc Effect seems to demonstrate that light is not constant , it is variable, and thus time would be constant. If light is not constant, then relativity is debunked and then.....what’s the implication here?

Hey Timmay! I'd love to dig into this more. What is it about the Sagnac Effect you're reading up on? I'm pretty sure it jives with relativity just fine in a rotating frame.
 
Please stop devolving to this level. No one here is in danger of doubting the veracity of the Bible or miracles.

The issue here is NOT one of faith vs non-faith; belief vs unbelief. I too believe the Bible when it says that the sun stood still! The question is whether one can deduce the mechanics of that from this passage, and I contest it's not meant to make a statement on the mechanics either way.
Then, how could it stand still if it isn't moving, Logan? Rhetorical, btw as I'm not engaging anymore.

Please stop with the reasoning that I'm saying one has faith and another doesn't. :banghead:
 
Markers in the text itself that point to the thing observed being a mere appearance and not the reality. From what I understand, "in" and "upon" are fairly expandable in Hebrew and need not be understood woodenly. Likewise, in other places of Scripture we have markers such as, "like unto."
Would you say that phrases like the sun staying in its place "for about a day" and the sun returning "ten degrees" would be markers in the text pointing to a reality and not a mere appearance?
 
From what I understand, "in" and "upon" are fairly expandable in Hebrew and need not be understood woodenly. Likewise, in other places of Scripture we have markers such as, "like unto."
Yes, those can in some cases be exegetical clues (not indicators or markers; EDIT: see below). But the problem in your logic, though, is you are trying to make a deductive conclusion based on inductive premises:

P1: Many phenomenological passages in the Bible contain exegetical clues.​
P2: This biblical passage does not contain such exegetical clues.​
C: Therefore, this passage is not phenomenological.​

This argument would only work if we changed "many" in the first premise to "all." The problem is, though, that there are many metaphorical passages in Scripture that do not contain these exegetical clues, such as when Scripture says that God has hands (not has something "like unto" hands). Of course, we know he doesn't because of clear teaching elsewhere, but the point is that these metaphorical statement have no exegetical clues within them, which means changing "many" to "all" in P1 would in order to make the argument deductive would make P1 false.

How do you know, "In the beginning, God..."? By faith, because He tells you. Can you explain how He always was without beginning or end?
I was asking how you know that "all that have read this account without what modern-day scientists say, believed the account as it's recorded." That's a very large claim to prove.

Honestly, this line of reasoning could go on and on, but I'm jumping off :wave:
I'm not engaging anymore.
You keep saying this, but then you keep coming back and saying weird things.
 
Last edited:
Jeri, I think we might come to an understanding on the hermeneutic question if you could think about this one question:

The text says Joshua commanded "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon" and the Lord hearkened to his voice. Did the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon from every perspective on earth or universe?

Don't we read that as being from Joshua's vantage point on the earth and not as though the sun is a little ball several hundred feet above the valley that appears to be stopping above it regardless of where the observer is?

Aren't we employing some "phenomenological" reading when we do that?
 
Would you say that phrases like the sun staying in its place "for about a day" and the sun returning "ten degrees" would be markers in the text pointing to a reality and not a mere appearance?
The term "marker" is an incorrect term in this context. There is a big difference in language between a "marker" and a simple exegetical or contextual clue. There are "markers" in language for things time, grammar, etc., but there are not "markers" that mark metaphor and phenomenology.
 
I read this. I’m not qualified to analyze it but it sounded convincing.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html

I don't know that I'm qualified either but I think they do mention up front the non-rotating issue. I believe that was included in a subsequent iteration of the special relativity equations (initially Einstein was thinking only in linear frames of reference) so I don't think that's been a concern for quite some time. I could be wrong though.
 
Jeri, I think we might come to an understanding on the hermeneutic question if you could think about this one question:

The text says Joshua commanded "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon" and the Lord hearkened to his voice. Did the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon from every perspective on earth or universe?

Don't we read that as being from Joshua's vantage point on the earth and not as though the sun is a little ball several hundred feet above the valley that appears to be stopping above it regardless of where the observer is?
My off the cuff answer (dangerous, have to retract too many of those) would be sure, this is where the sun was overhead when Joshua commanded it; and it stood still at that spot. Others far away would see different landmarks, but also see that the sun had stopped its course across the sky. I don't think this makes the narrator's account phenomenological though. Am I missing something? (Likely.)
 
Maybe the hermeneutic, which doesn’t take into account that God is condescending down to the level of ancient man to express theological truths, actually creates more liberalism?
 
My off the cuff answer (dangerous, have to retract too many of those) would be sure, this is where the sun was overhead when Joshua commanded it; and it stood still at that spot. Others far away would see different landmarks, but also see that the sun had stopped its course across the sky. I don't think this makes the narrator's account phenomenological though. Am I missing something? (Likely.)

So here is what I'm getting at:
Joshua commanded the sun to stand over a specific place and God listened to him. We agree (at least in your off-the-cuff answer) that this was from Joshua's point of view, however, and not a universal point of view regardless where you are on the earth or universe.

So if that is only from Joshua's perspective, then why can't the sun stopping in the sky also be from Joshua's perspective? Why the shift in frame of reference from the individual's in the one to a universal in the other?

I read both as being from Joshua's perspective. You seem to read one as being from Joshua's and the other being a universal perspective. So the proposal is that just as there is no disservice to the veracity of the text by believing the one is Joshua's perspective (over the valley), so neither is believing the second to also be Joshua's perspective (stood still in the sky).

I don't know what he would have seen if he'd been somewhere else in the solar system. But from where he was, however it was done, the sun stood still upon Gibeon.
 
This argument would only work if we changed "many" in the first premise to "all." The problem is, though, that there are many metaphorical passages in Scripture that do not contain these exegetical clues, such as when Scripture says that God has hands (not has something "like unto" hands). Of course, we know he doesn't because of clear teaching elsewhere, but the point is that these metaphorical statement have no exegetical clues within them, which means changing "many" to "all" in P1 would in order to make the argument deductive would make P1 false.
There is nothing in the passage or the Scriptures to indicate that the earth moves and the sun stands still: we get that from outside scientific considerations (Is that what you are doing? That is what most people do who state the sun only appears to move and that the Scriptures are speaking according to mere appearances). That is why contextual clues here are important and why one can understand things like "upon" or "in" to be figurative (and the sun "standing" to be figurative of it stopping), but we have nothing to clue is in to the idea that the sun only appears to move.

Would you say that phrases like the sun staying in its place "for about a day" and the sun returning "ten degrees" would be markers in the text pointing to a reality and not a mere appearance?
I would just say that it says the sun moves, so unless there are good contextual reasons for saying the sun only appears to move, we should believe that it moves.....even as we should believe that Jesus really did multiply the fish and loaves or that God caused a wind to blow that divided the Red sea and so on and that Jesus really did walk on water, unless we have contextual clues telling us that that is only what appeared to be the case. There is nothing contrary to common sense about or obvious contradiction to the sun being in motion, unlike with God having hands (He is a Spirit) or the sun "standing."


What is so difficult with stating that exegetically the sun moves? If we can all accept that point, I think one will find the sort of geocentrism that some here are promoting is really not that difficult to accept or different in technique than what we normally do with the interpretation of Scripture.
 
Moderation (and genuine question)

Has everyone had their say and made their point? I'm worrying about how this thread has led to frustration among the saints.

I'm inclined to call it closed by tonight unless persuaded otherwise.
 
Moderation (and genuine question)

Has everyone had their say and made their point? I'm worrying about how this thread has led to frustration among the saints.

I'm inclined to call it closed by tonight unless persuaded otherwise.

Go ahead. The simple answer I received is it’s a theological position. I was hoping for some more science based answers in the thread which I did receive a few of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't know that I'm qualified either but I think they do mention up front the non-rotating issue. I believe that was included in a subsequent iteration of the special relativity equations (initially Einstein was thinking only in linear frames of reference) so I don't think that's been a concern for quite some time. I could be wrong though.

Could you dumb this down for me? I’m learning as a go and I’m not really sure what you just said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That is why contextual clues here are important and why one can understand things like "upon" or "in" to be figurative (and the sun "standing" to be figurative of it stopping)...
The key word here is “can,” which has been our whole point.
...but we have nothing to clue is in to the idea that the sun only appears to move.
Begging the question. This whole discussion is about whether such clues are necessary to begin with.
What is so difficult with stating that exegetically the sun moves?
As long as you say “may” before the assertion, then I’m fine with that.
 
Moderation (and genuine question)

Has everyone had their say and made their point? I'm worrying about how this thread has led to frustration among the saints.

I'm inclined to call it closed by tonight unless persuaded otherwise.
I'm not frustrated. However, I have said all I wish to say, except for something philosophical and deep that I might not have time to say.

Go ahead. The simple answer I received is it’s a theological position. I was hoping for some more science based answers in the thread which I did receive a few of.
There are two streams of scientific thought for this.

Relative geocentrism, which accepts general relativity and says earth is merely a preferred frame for one reason or another (but not because of physics).

Absolute geocenrism, which usually denies relativity, for some of the reasons you have seen in this thread and in other threads. Some people in this camp will acknowledge that the earth rotates, others say the earth neither rotates nor revolves. Greg Bouw (sp?) has the most complete physical model, though it is speculative. Oftentimes, one has to deny that the cosmic microwave background radiation is universal and arguments are made that it is local. Rotational effects on earth are usually described as a result of forces from the universe, though not in a Machian sense, since relativity has been denied; but this is an easier position to defend for those who acknowledge the earth rotates but stands still in one place.
 
Could you dumb this down for me? I’m learning as a go and I’m not really sure what you just said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I understand, Einstein's famous thought experiments are something like a train is moving and you are on a train and drop a ball. If the train is moving at 45 miles per hour, then why does the ball act like you dropped it when standing still. In other words, it didn't move to the back of the train, which is what would have happened had you been outside and dropped the ball to the ground while hte train is moving.

The reason is that there are two inertial frames of reference: one is the observer on the ground as the train is passing by. The other is the guy in the train with the ball. In both cases the train is moving in a linear direction.

Does that linear model apply in outer space? That's the question. Mind you, I completely reject geocentrism, so I am biased on this. Regardless, the sun isn't moving in a linear form, nor are planets moving in a linear direction.
 
Sometime... we should look at a passage in the book of Joshua. It’s where Achan sinned and that is the reason given that Israel lost at Ai.

I see the editors interpreting Israel’s history through the lenses of a theological implication at hand. Not that they didn’t lose because of a single man sinning. But we moderns wouldn’t explain how the Brits lost at Dunkirk in WW2 because a single man sinned.
Maybe they were out numbered?
But I see the scripture through the lenses of the original audience first. I see the intent different for ancients.

it wasn’t until Herodotus that history was starting to become more of a science in its recording. But still...that was much, much later. And there was still subjectivity in the eyes of the victors writing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top